<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Joan, oops, I misread your last post. (it's that damn dyslexia thing)
My apologies. Generally we are in accord on the subject with one
caveat. <br>
<br>
The vast majority of clinical programs are built on the 12 step model
for long term recovery, hence their effectiveness compares directly
with that model. The AMA and the American Hospital Association both
have dogmatic views of treatment, charge large fees, and are building
an industry with poor outcomes. The vast majority of people who stop
drinking or taking drugs do so with no clinical help. Additionally,
the medical protocol for detox and maintenance is a cocktail of SSRI
drugs (like Prozac) with a diazepam chaser to ward off the
anti-depressant jitters. Accordingly, the medical community is
substituting one addiction for another, the efficacy of which shows
little or no clinical promise from an outcome based review of the
literature. <br>
<br>
It makes little sense to spend great deals of public funds on
conventional rehabilitation. One thing that may make sense on a trial
basis, is to provide vocational and social rehabilitation within the
context of drug rehab. The root causes of addiction usually come from
a need for a larger sense of self. Many, although not all, addicts
lack basic social skills and have few marketable skills. Thus,
addiction becomes a vicious cycle of failing then self-medicating to
achieve a sense of well-being. As I said in a previous post: most
addicts only stop when they want to stop. If there is a potential
positive outcome it may come in the form of providing an environment
for personal productivity. <br>
<br>
I don't know if this program would work, but I think that the
literature provides enough evidence to give it a shot. Also, I'm not
sure if the federal government is the answer here. Like Justice
Brandeis hypotheses that "each state is a laboratory of democracy" I
think a multitude of experimentation at the state level would produce
positive outcomes faster.<br>
<br>
Diverting federal funds from the DEA to the medical industry would
surely be less costly than the current system. We need to ensure that
special interest groups don't co-opt treatment however. It seems this
would be throwing good money after bad regardless of the magnitude if
we don't insist on performance accountability.<br>
<br>
My name is Dave, and I'm an addict. I have 2617 days clean.<br>
<br>
ps. Anyone who wants to talk about anything or anyone regarding this
issue should feel free to contact me off list.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David M. Budge wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid421B8E08.6020206@davebudge.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;">
<title></title>
Joan writes:<br>
<br>
"There. That's it for me. Mr. Bush's unproven use aside, Dave, are
we or are we not in general accord on this issue? Treatment and not
incarceration. Stop use with the user and not by bombing poppie fields
in Afghanistan or coca leaf growers in Columbia? Stop with the DEA and
make with the funding for the REHAB."<br>
<br>
I never said we were in general accord (although we're much closer than
you seem to think.) I said you are in general accord with William F.
Buckley, Jr, etc., etc.<br>
<br>
...and you are.<br>
<br>
db<br>
<br>
Joan Opyr wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midBAY10-DAV4C2FD38AF3A89982E634CC5630@phx.gbl">
<div>Dear Dave and other Visionaries:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>About the Bush budget cuts -- it could be that I was thinking
not of Mark Solomon's list but of a piece I read in some left-wing rag
entitled: <strong>Bush Budget Kills Drug-Free Schools Program,
Maintains Block Grant</strong>. (Sorry, I didn't copy the URL, but I
did print out the article, so it must have made quite an impression on
me as I'm generally cheap with the toner. The journal is called <strong>Fighting
Back</strong>, so that should tell you something about its slant;
you're free, if you like, to go ahead now and dismiss it. I won't take
offense. Hell, I won't know, will I?) My understanding of the matter,
however, is that Bush's 2006 Budget calls for $441 million in funding
for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools & Communities Program, a
reduction, though not a draconian one; it calls for "level funding" of
the nearly $2 billion-dollar Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
block grant program; and a $270 million decrease in funding for demand
reduction programs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To quote that damned liberal rag, <strong>Fighting Back</strong>:<br>
<br>
"After years of sustained, stratospheric budget increases, funding for
addiction research would come back to earth under Bush's 2006 plan.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse would get a modest $4- million
dollar increase to its $1-billion budget, while the $438-million
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism would rise by
just $2 million." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does this keep pace with inflation? Does this keep pace with
use? Damned if I know. I'd need to do a lot more research than I'm
willing to do for the sake of fussing with you, Dave Budge. (It's
nothing personal; I have a neck-ache. Poor ergonomics here at my
computer desk.) I will note however (and I will say a sarcastic
hoorah!) that the Bush administration is expanding funding for the
Access to Recovery program, which allows individuals to choose
faith-based recovery programs like AA, I assume, only with even more
God stuff. Will this work? Is it Constitutional? Will this sort
of rehab get you off of horse and onto the Pauline donkey? Sorry --
I'm answering your questions with questions again. I have a bad habit
of doing that. I think it's a Jewish trait; Jesus did it <strong><u>all</u></strong>
the time. Drove his followers crazy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, Dave, you are quite right to point out that I do not have
direct, first-hand, signed affidavit knowledge of George W. Bush's
illegal drug use. I was way too young to get into the Texas version of
Studio 54 back when Mr. Bush was in his twenties and thirties. He's
acknowledged that he abused alcohol until he was forty (though he has
never admitted to being an alcoholic). Others -- and who knows how
reliable they are -- have attested to his use of other substances. Mr
Doug Wead (what a great name) has come forward with tapes of
then-Governor Bush talking implicitly, if not explicitly, about his
marijuana use, and discussing his strategy for dealing with questions
about other drugs that he may or may not have toked upon. I suppose I
could rely on Kitty Kelley . . . but then I would catch hell, wouldn't
I? The Bushes have neither sued her nor had her assassinated, so I
guess that puts her credibility at about 50/50. Nope -- I can never be
100% sure that Mr. Bush snorted coke. I am forced to rely not, as you
suggest, on Democratic imitators of The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,
but on grotesque hearsay, stories put about by Mr. Bush's old friends
and fraternity brothers, Larry Flynt's <strong>Penthouse</strong>, and
the rumors regarding said drug use that have swirled about Texas for
the past thirty years. I have to rely on all of that <u><strong>and</strong></u> my
own unverifiable-but-never-let-me-down-before experience and judgment
at spotting a user. That's what tells me that Mr. Bush was a
snort-a-roosky. He had the money, the connections, the time, and the
inclination. Dismiss that if you must, but I'm going with it. Call it
woman's intuition. Or not. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>[BTW, if I were Jennifer McFarland, I'd pull the Presidential
limo and search it with the sniffer dogs the very next time Mr. Bush
drives through Moscow. You can thank me for the tip later, Jennifer.
When 60 Minutes interviews you, you can plug my book!]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There. That's it for me. Mr. Bush's unproven use aside,
Dave,
are we or are we not in general accord on this issue? Treatment and
not incarceration. Stop use with the user and not by bombing poppie
fields in Afghanistan or coca leaf growers in Columbia? Stop with the
DEA and make with the funding for the REHAB.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment</div>
<div><a href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>PS: If you're a glutton for punishment, Google "Bush Budget
2006" and "drug treatment" and you'll find five thousand sources,
opinions, and commentary on what will happen re: treatment versus
incarceration over the next four years. If you're not a glutton for
punishment, then please allow me to summarize: it's not good.</div>
<br clear="all">
<hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br>
<pre wrap=""><hr width="90%" size="4">
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<hr width="90%" size="4">
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>